Many user identification systems are known in the art. The most common method for user identification in typical computer applications is through the use of a user identification and password, often alpha-numeric strings used to verify the user. In other approaches, various methods are employed for storing image or password information in a magnetic stripe or in an optically encoded image or pattern, which is physically part of the identification card. Still other approaches utilize a “smart card” having, for example, its own semiconductor memory capability for information storage.
More elaborate schemes take advantage of the user's unique physical features such as fingerprints, facial features and retinal scan data. Once these features are digitized as an image, the processed data is stored for reference at a later time. When the user logs into the system, then the reference data is compared to the input to determine the similarities.
More recently, there have been developments in the field of automatic signature verification. In the early stages, systems were disclosed which made the concept of personal identification via computer-based signature practical. Subsequently, a number of patents disclosed systems whereby the use of acceleration and pressure data from a person's unique signature dynamics were compared to verify the user's identify. Following are examples of such patents in the prior art.
U.S. Pat. No. 4,513,437 of Chainer, et. al. entitled “Data Input Pen for Signature Verification,” discloses a special structure within the pen for detecting acceleration forces involving variable capacitance transducers and does not disclose nor suggest a cost-effective pen apparatus or a secure method of maintaining the signature data.
U.S. Pat. No. 5,018,208 of Gladstone entitled “Input Device for Dynamic Signature Verification Systems,” discloses a pen with barrel pressure transducers for sensing radially-inward-directed finger pressure against the barrel. However, the patent does not suggest or disclose a cost-effective pen apparatus or a secure method of maintaining the signature data.
U.S. Pat. No. 5,517,579 of Baron, et. al, entitled “Handwriting Input Apparatus for Handwriting Recognition using More Than One Sensing Technique,” discloses a handwriting recognition apparatus employing at least two different sensing techniques and a method by which each handwritten symbol may be recognized using a per-person, per-symbol database. Once again, the patent does not disclose a cost-effective pen apparatus or a secure method of maintaining the signature data.
U.S. Pat. No. 5,774,571 of Marshal entitled “Writing Instrument with Multiple Sensors for Biometric Verification,” discloses an apparatus with a grip sensor that senses the grip pressure pattern of the user and compares those patterns against known patterns. The grip sensor precludes the device from being cost-effective and the patent does not discuss or disclose the security of the data.
U.S. Pat. No. 6,236,740 of Lee entitled “Signature Verification Apparatus and Method Utilizing Relative Angle Measurements,” discloses an apparatus and method for verifying a signature by generating a string of identification digits in a document, writing those identification digits with a data input stylus and verifying the identification digits according to the relative angle of the data input stylus. The patent discloses one method of adding security to the data but does not provide for a cost-effective writing instrument.
U.S. Pat. No. 6,539,101 of Black entitled “Method for Identity Verification,” discloses a verification method whereby the user grasps a writing stylus that captures a fingerprint image and compares that image against a known image. Once again, the finger-print gathering apparatus on the barrel of the pen makes the device cost-prohibitive and there is no method disclosed for preserving the security of the data.
As can be seen from the foregoing, the configuration of each of the devices causes them to be considerably more costly than a conventional writing instrument. In addition, another significant problem is that both the input data and the reference data can be easily stolen and used by unauthorized parties. Therefore, a need remains for a cost-effective writing device that is capable of providing secure biometric information for verification.